Re: Add comment explaining why queryid is int64 in pg_stat_statements
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>, Shaik Mohammad Mujeeb <mujeeb.sk@zohocorp.com>, ilyaevdokimov <ilya.evdokimov@tantorlabs.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, mujeebskdev <mujeeb.sk.dev@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
Date: 2025-05-29T14:28:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Change internal plan ID type from uint64 to int64
- e050af28686e 18.0 landed
-
Change internal queryid type from uint64 to int64
- c3eda50b0648 18.0 landed
-
pg_stat_statements: Widen query IDs from 32 bits to 64 bits.
- cff440d36869 11.0 cited
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 01:53:07PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 01:01:14PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I have added an open item about the plan ID part as it applies to v18, >> adding the RMT in CC to get an opinion. If we cannot get a consensus >> on all that, letting things as they are is still logically correct, >> even with the -Wwarnings-format-signedness argument which is not >> included by default currently. >> >> Has somebody an opinion to offer? > > It has been one week since this last update, and there has been > nothing except the sound of cicadas. IMO, I think that we should just > pull the switch and make both of these IDs signed on HEAD, taking case > of the potential signedness warning issues. > > Now, I don't really want to take a leap of faith without the RMT being > OK with that now that we are in beta1. After reading through this thread and the latest patch set, I don't see any strong reason for the RMT to object to this change for v18. IIUC some extensions may need to adapt, but we're still a few months from 18.0, so that seems okay. I vaguely recall that we've made other small extension-breaking changes during the beta period for previous major releases. -- nathan